The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1887-06-22

Attention to other matters prevent
ed any notice last week of *. Is
objections to the proposition advocat-
ed in several Of our exchanges, to
abolish the circuit solicitors and es-
tablish county prosecuting attorneys
The first and weightiest objections ad-
eanced by s'X T." is that the change
would create 26 new Offices, and he
presumes the Legislature would make
their pay greater than the amount
now set apart for circuit solicitors.
He further adds that the Attorney
General might deem it necessary to
summons this host of county solicit
ors to attend the meeting of the Leg
islature." All these obstacles to the
change are the work OF "X. rs" fruit
full imagination, and are out of place
; at this stage. The same demagogic
objections might just as properly be
raised to the change of the most OBJ
nozious or expensive law 90 the stat
ute book. If for the better admins
tration OF justice this change is re-
CURED, and the people demand it,
which must be the case as the Office
is constitutional, then the few adii-
tional dollars, if any are necessary,
viii be well spent. It need not be in the
province of the Attorney General to
summon solicitors to the General AS
sembly. The statute law of the State
may contrel that. If the law is ever
changed, this matter can be regulat-
ed by enactment, as the exigencies of
the times demand, and the wisdom Of
the Legislature deems fit.
The second objection OF "X. q, !"
that the change would interfere with
the present arrangement of the juris-
dictional territory of the judges, has
no foundation. The solicitors Office
may be abolished or amended and
amended again without interference in
the least with the territory of the cir
cuitjudges.
'X. q" urges this last peculiar OBJ
lection to tie proposed change:
gou use the argument that the solicitor
as he is, is a perfect stranger to the senti-
ment of men drawn to serve at q term Of
the court. which he should know to prevent
the defendant from selecting twelve men
vino are opposed to conviction and is unac-
qua;nted with the testimony of the State
witnesses, which he should know verbatim,
until they tell it on the stand. It appears
to me that the same argument may be used
against circuit judge. he having had no
knowledge of the particular case, the wit
nesses, etc, Until the trial begins, will not
know how to charge the jury on account Of
cGnaieting testimony or something Of that
nature. Gan the fault be in the judge Or
solicitor. because they are non-residents of
the county IN which the crime was commit
ted and the criminal tried, if the jury bring
IN verdict which appears to be against
convictilg testimony? But is it not the du-
ty of the judge to assist the jury ip arriving
at a right conclusion? In other words to
tell them what verdict to find? If this is
not his bounden duty, am yet to know
what's.
In the above, our correspondent ex-
hibits profound ignorance OF the du-
ties of a Judge, and making this Office,
analogous with that of the solicitor
his argument goes for naught. The
facts or evidence in case, as the least
acquainted with our system of juris-
prudence we'll know, are matters sole
" for the consideration Of the jury.
The Judge cannot pass upon the facts
and his only prerogative is to charge
the jury what the law is. The evidence,
they must decide themselves. We be-
lieve 'X. T." has failed to define his
true position and that he does himself
injustice. We have not yet advocated
the change in the law relative to solic,
itors, but simply pointed out some OF
the grievances of the present system,
The more, however, We consider the
matter, the more convinced we are
that there could be an Improvement
on circuit solicitors, and the remedy
may lie in county attorneys.